Re: CANDY KIDS

Originally Posted by KenMixtape

I am a 37 year old raver who still loves the light toys. There should be no problem bringing in glowsticks. Last year when security was checking my backpack, he took a look at my Strobe FX lights (LED type lights on a wand) and he said "what's this, e-tard shit?" so I laughed "yep, E-tard shit".
He laughed, let me through and said "Have a good time man!"

AMAAZING STORY!
nehow, im gonna just gonna leave em in my bag first day and see what happens with security

Re: CANDY KIDS

Originally Posted by KenMixtape

I am a 37 year old raver who still loves the light toys. There should be no problem bringing in glowsticks. Last year when security was checking my backpack, he took a look at my Strobe FX lights (LED type lights on a wand) and he said "what's this, e-tard shit?" so I laughed "yep, E-tard shit".
He laughed, let me through and said "Have a good time man!"

Re: CANDY KIDS

Ha! It totally reminded me of the e-tard who had his kids taken away from him on this HBO special. Truth be told I just like the word e-tard, i'm the last person to hear it I think and I laugh whenever I heard it. Anyway this guy I think was even taking e with his teen kids and they would all go to raves together and he was fried. Next thing you know he's going to court in a suite and crying in his car wanting his kids back and the very next scene he's talking about how it isn't fair that he should have to stop raving and taking E.

It's illegal fucktard and they took your fucking kids. There is this scene where the fucking kids are the god damn adults and they are all sitting on the floor crying and the little girl was like "daddy we just want to see you"

All this fucking tard had to do was stop fucking doing drugs in front of his fucking kids. Fucking e-tard.

No offense to anyone as my anger is simply at someone who chose Ecstacty over their kids.

Re: CANDY KIDS

Re: CANDY KIDS

Originally Posted by faxman75

Ha! It totally reminded me of the e-tard who had his kids taken away from him on this HBO special. Truth be told I just like the word e-tard, i'm the last person to hear it I think and I laugh whenever I heard it. Anyway this guy I think was even taking e with his teen kids and they would all go to raves together and he was fried. Next thing you know he's going to court in a suite and crying in his car wanting his kids back and the very next scene he's talking about how it isn't fair that he should have to stop raving and taking E.

It's illegal fucktard and they took your fucking kids. There is this scene where the fucking kids are the god damn adults and they are all sitting on the floor crying and the little girl was like "daddy we just want to see you"

All this fucking tard had to do was stop fucking doing drugs in front of his fucking kids. Fucking e-tard.

No offense to anyone as my anger is simply at someone who chose Ecstacty over their kids.

Re: CANDY KIDS

Re: CANDY KIDS

Faxman & amyzzz: Yep, it was and HBO America Undercover documentary called "Small Town Ecstasy." Sacramento, CA is the "small town" in question. Coincidentally, I was at my parent's house 4 years back in FL the night I was to tell them of my plans to move 3,000 miles to Sac. Guess what popped up on t.v. just before I made my little announcement? Jheesh.

Re: CANDY KIDS

Originally Posted by digitalface

Faxman & amyzzz: Yep, it was and HBO America Undercover documentary called "Small Town Ecstasy." Sacramento, CA is the "small town" in question. Coincidentally, I was at my parent's house 4 years back in FL the night I was to tell them of my plans to move 3,000 miles to Sac. Guess what popped up on t.v. just before I made my little announcement? Jheesh.

Yeah that might make yer folks uneasy. But really what the fuck was wrong with that guy? He's fuckin' cryin cuz he refused to stop doing drugs so he can hang with his kids. Fuckin' E-Tard man child. I'm 31 years old and I take care of two fucking kids that by blood have no relation to me and STILL I wouldn 't do drugs around them or have to think or cry about quiting if I did.

In fact I take care of my sister inlaws kid who is a fucking low life jobless tweaker who thank god my lady decided to file for guardianship of otherwise this girl who was kept OUT Of school by her mother would be a fuckin' foster kids because the rest of the familiy didn't want the fucking inconvenience.

Re: CANDY KIDS

Yep, as a human community we should hope that the needs of kids are understood and put first. My parents already knew I had been DJing in the scene for years, so it was a bit of a challenge to formulate an argument to my family which would disassociate myself from mindstates such as Scott Meyers' in 2002. Good times. As far as the judgement others, I refer anyone first to the intrinsic paradox of drug use (the power of which should not be underestimated for anyone), then to the knowledge that every experience is different to each, and finally, to the understanding that no other person's actions or decisions can intrinsically disaffirm the weight and importance of your own. Only you have that power.

Just sayin'.

An update to the story as posted on an HBO Doc. board by a family member:

"Well Scott Meyers is actually my uncle and those kids are my cousins. A quick update, if you want more you can email me at *******. Scott has stopped drugs. He recently had a baby boy with his new girlfriend. Craig is living with his girlfriend and has a great job. Heather and Chris broke up after 2 years and she is living with her best friend in a Sacramento apartment. Sam is a senior in high school, and although he sunk into a depression after the documentary aired (and was caught with alcohol twice in school), he has definitely learned from his mistakes. They are all drug free. I believe that although that documentary was very exploitative and degrading not only to my uncles, but to our family as a whole (It gave a lot of reasons for people to judge and say my uncle is retarded, when he in all reality he is amazing, just made some mistakes) it was probably a good thing for the Meyers kids. I think that because the biggest mistake of their lives was aired on National television, it really showed them the severity of the mistake, and they learned from it much more than any other ecstasy using teen. I am 17, as well as my cousin Sam, and I understand that my uncle made a mistake. It just pisses me off when people judge him. Thank you."

Re: CANDY KIDS

Originally Posted by KenMixtape

I am a 37 year old raver who still loves the light toys. There should be no problem bringing in glowsticks. Last year when security was checking my backpack, he took a look at my Strobe FX lights (LED type lights on a wand) and he said "what's this, e-tard shit?" so I laughed "yep, E-tard shit".
He laughed, let me through and said "Have a good time man!"

that's pathetic. i thought the lights were for 17 year olds, not 37 year olds. the whole point of lights is to distract you from bad music.

Re: CANDY KIDS

I'll respond more later but I fully realize the camera is one sided. Which is why I pointed out specific instances and actions that occured in the film. I felt terrible for the kids. His children were my only concern and it was heartbreaking. They werent' spying on him, the stuff that happened in that film was real. Real sad. The film maker was effective. I"m glad to hear he kicked the drugs and is no longer an E-Tard.

WE should start a new thread elsewhere on the board maybe discussing the rave scene. I think it can be an intelligent one. We can keep the discussion here in this thread too since it's appropriately titled candy kids.

For me the beginning and the end of the argument is that drugs are the life and the death of the scene. Unfortunately more often than not the drugs bleed into the music and the music bleeds into the drugs. RIP Nicky Fingers. Loved that guys skills.

Re: CANDY KIDS

Ok, i'm going to get back into this just a bit. It's fact in the film that Scott (the dad) is at a party with his kids. It's a fact that he didn't buy ectacy for his kids. It's also a fact that the brainstem then gave his kids money and the kids then went and took the ecstacy. Ok, bad parent. No good parent takes their kid to a rave and subjects him to that environment and then gives them money. I realize the asshat didn't purchase the actual drugs and then put them in his kids mouth but for fucks sake man, how old were those fucking kids? 15 and 13?

It's more than a couple mistakes if you are taking your 13 year old to a rave and you are rolling on X. That's some quality time right there. HA!

Re: CANDY KIDS

Originally Posted by Pixiessp

Glow Sticks make for a tasty treat.

Yeah, and the day you break one open so you can "paint with the glowstick juice", you'll gag from the rotten orange stench in those things. Then you'll get that stuff all over your arms and freak yourself out. When I was a teen, I stumbled upon my friends doing just that. Idiots.

Re: CANDY KIDS

Originally Posted by faxman75

I'll respond more later but I fully realize the camera is one sided. Which is why I pointed out specific instances and actions that occured in the film. I felt terrible for the kids. His children were my only concern and it was heartbreaking.

I think it possible the fact that it was all filmed and broadcast competes for the greater injury.

Re: CANDY KIDS

i thought the lights were for 17 year olds, not 37 year olds.

hey.. i love glowsticks, blinky lights, etc. and im in my 30s too. i have a huge assortment of balls that blink, lights that change rainbow colors when you wave them. i also love glitter. so there. phooey

Re: CANDY KIDS

Originally Posted by digitalface

I think it possible the fact that it was all filmed and broadcast competes for the greater injury.

I don't think it competes considering as the fucking father of these too kids he brought them to a rave and them gave them money which they went to spend on Ecstacy. Kids age 13-15 who don't have fully developed brains doing ecstacy is about 50 times worse than documenting the incident on camera. The only person to blame here is the father named Scott. He was a total and complete child who chose to bring his kids to a rave party and then not supervise them after giving them money so they went and purchased drugs and and rolled.

Re: CANDY KIDS

Ouside of the technically criminal nature of Scott's actions in the U.S., there is little doubt that his conduct was at least morally negligent. In the absence of any real statistics or referenceable and specific medical truths, this argument of greater injury is based only in opinion. However, the fact must be faced that his kids would likely have found a way to get their hands on it through their older siblings anyway, and further, would have taken it without his supervision. Regardless, moving forward in their lives, they still needed a future free of drug use on public record and father that would countinue to be repeatedly humiliated, even 5 years later. Something else Scott didn't consider when he apparently signed consent to HBO in 2002.

Re: CANDY KIDS

Originally Posted by digitalface

Ouside of the technically criminal nature of Scott's actions in the U.S., there is little doubt that his conduct was at least morally negligent. In the absence of any real statistics or referenceable and specific medical truths, this argument of greater injury is based only in opinion.

Sorry, you fail here. Just because MDMA is illegal and they don't study it doen't mean it isn't likely to have long term effects on a developing brain.

What language are you speaking? You are dancing in circles trying to justify a parent brining their 13 and 15 year old to a rave and then doing ecstacy with his kids. I don't care if this were legal or illegal, Scott gave his kids money at a rave, they went and got ecstacy with it and dosed.

As far as greater injury goes, the fact is you are mixing the chemicals of mdma A DRUG THAT ALTERS THE MIND with the normal biological chemicals of a non fully formed brain. It's science look it up.

The huge issue with allowing a child to do ecstacy is you can't guaranty what they are making it with. is it pur mdma? You never know. There is no test. The fact is thousands visit the emergency room every year and hundreds die from it. If you are 18 or older, fine, do what you want, i'm sure ecstacy isn't more dangerous than alcohol.

However, the fact must be faced that his kids would likely have found a way to get their hands on it through their older siblings anyway, and further, would have taken it without his supervision.

Not on that night, not if dad didn't take them and dad didn't give them the money to do it. I'm with you on as people we should all be able to choose what we want to put inside of our own body but I do not believe any child should be enabled by their so called parent to do so.

Regardless, moving forward in their lives, they still needed a future free of drug use on public record and father that would countinue to be repeatedly humiliated, even 5 years later. Something else Scott didn't consider when he apparently signed consent to HBO in 2002.

Maybe that's because he was on ecstacy and his mind wasn't in a state that allowed him to make rational decisions. I think humiliation is the least of his problems.

Re: CANDY KIDS

I'm not dancing around anything. You've missed my point and misunderstood my statements. My point is not to justify his actions. I am, however, offering another point of view. That's it. Continued vilification Scott Meyers wouldn't help anyone, least of all his kids. That's just another effect of the entire situation that wasn't addressed. So, I thought I'd mention it.

You also seem to think that my words attempt to discount any science that exists. Again, not true. I'm aware of the science. I know about the potential risks. I've never stated that it has no effects (long-term or not) on anyone's anything at any age. I've only stated that references are absent. Saying something is "50 times worse than something else" requires a little backup, no? Initially, I was only offering that while the possibility of physical harm which Scott enabled and that he screwed up as a parent is obvious, there is another substantial harm here. Of course, it would be difficult, at best, to measure the impact of either misstep, but there is at least one that will have certain long-lasting effects.

Re: CANDY KIDS

Originally Posted by psychic friend

hey.. i love glowsticks, blinky lights, etc. and im in my 30s too. i have a huge assortment of balls that blink, lights that change rainbow colors when you wave them. i also love glitter. so there. phooey

But there really is no place for e-tard clowns who swing around 10 foot long glowsticks with absolutely no consideration for those around them. at least not at coachella. if you wanna swing around a 10 foot rope of light, go to a rave.

Re: CANDY KIDS

Originally Posted by crazzz2007

But there really is no place for e-tard clowns who swing around 10 foot long glowsticks with absolutely no consideration for those around them. at least not at coachella. if you wanna swing around a 10 foot rope of light, go to a rave.

I agree with Psychic, lights are lights, and are cool in and of themselves, if that's what folks enjoy. It sucks that partiers are disrespectful with them, though. They really should be used out in open spaces if person isn't skilled or too messed up to pay the right attention. However, the Coachella scope and production does incorporate elements of rave, so it's only fitting this sort of thing finds its way there. Personally, I give props for attendee event interactivity like this, no matter how cliche.

Re: CANDY KIDS

[QUOTE=faxman75;97286]

The huge issue with allowing a child to do ecstacy is you can't guaranty what they are making it with. is it pur mdma? You never know. There is no test. The fact is thousands visit the emergency room every year and hundreds die from it. If you are 18 or older, fine, do what you want, i'm sure ecstacy isn't more dangerous than alcohol.

Re: CANDY KIDS

[QUOTE=BoneDaddy;98960]

Originally Posted by faxman75

The huge issue with allowing a child to do ecstacy is you can't guaranty what they are making it with. is it pur mdma? You never know. There is no test. The fact is thousands visit the emergency room every year and hundreds die from it. If you are 18 or older, fine, do what you want, i'm sure ecstacy isn't more dangerous than alcohol.

Hundreds of people die from taking ecstacy every year?

haah i like how this thread turned into an anti-drug campaign

i think the reasons why people do drugs are quite clear

and the battle between safe, recreational, and even medicinal usage vs people that couldnt handle their personal drug use and religious folk or american morality
this battle has been drawn quite clear

deaths looms everywhere, in the things you eat, your modes of transportation, its in youre genes, and its dumb to rip a drug for a few hundred die a year haha, there are much bigger killers out there. im not saying do it 5 times a week, now those people are fucked in 10 years

i say, everything is worth trying once,

but if youre going to be a molested little girl , atleast try salvia, thats a real eye opener